Disagree with you Chris... (0.00 / 0)

Gallup explicitly noted that during Obama's popularity slide, the poll numbers for the economy have been going up.  People think the economy is getting better, not worse, and the slide continues...

The perception of the economy improving hurts the case for health care reform, 'cos everyone thinks that as soon as they get a job, their health care problems will go away...

The economy is being used as an excuse to not pass health care reform, but it's perceived improvement actually HURTS health care reform!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 15:41:36 PM CDT

"Victory" looks good (4.00 / 1)

This is where I think the Rahms in the world are partially correct.  Any old "victory" will look good to voters in the short term.  Over time the program will be judged on its merits, but not at first.

In other words, I don't think it is very possible for heath care reform to be unpopular the day after it passes, even if it was mildly unpopular the day before.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 15:43:22 PM CDT

At some point... (4.00 / 3)

It needs to be good, however.  If it's not good, then no one will use it or even know what it is.  If a public option is passed and well advertised and people start buying into it and finding out that, hey, this is actually pretty good, then it will pay out dividends for years to come... and Republican efforts to "repeal" it will never happen when millions of people are on it and happy with it... lest they face the wrath of those millions.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 16:20:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely (4.00 / 2)

I'm just talking the very short term, here.  Almost no matter what is in the bill, the MSM will hail it as a major victory for Obama.

Note this works both ways.  Even if all you are looking for is  "victories", then you might as well pass good legislation while you are at it.  You won't be penalized for it, despite what they think.

[The same thing is true for action films, btw.  If no one going to the movie really cares about the plot, you might as well make it a really good plot -- it isn't like you will be punished for it, as long as the action is good.]

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 16:33:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democrats and Obama are hurting reform (4.00 / 3)

By not putting every ounce of time into it.  Obama should never have allowed Congress to go on vacation before passing a bill.  All I know is that he has to get this done before the November governors election.  

---

by: BobTegas @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 15:48:48 PM CDT

I have to disagree (4.00 / 1)

The economy was already bad at the beginning of August. Hell, you should also note that "fear" about the bad economy was probably worst from about October of last year to March of this year, and health care reform approval numbers were highest then.

The only difference now is "death panels" and all that other bull---t that that right wing is spewing out, putting Dems on the defensive. Obama is the one guy who can grab this bull by the horns with some massive outdoor speeches or events profiling people who have been failed by current insurance practices.

But I would not argue that the economy, which if anything has shown signs of bottoming out, is the culprit here.

---

by: existenz @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 15:53:23 PM CDT

Is Health Care Reform hurting? (0.00 / 0)

I thought the most recent polls show support in favor of health care reform that's almost as strong as it was last spring, when the economy was as bad it is now. It seems that voters continue to favor universal access, ending rescission, subsidies for those that need it, a public insurance option like Medicare, and universal participation because the economy is in such crappy shape; a majority of voters seem to understand that health care reform is one of the ways we'll help the economy to recover and to sustain over the long haul.

Senators in Congress seem to me to be completely disconnected from the public sentiment on health care reform. It's probably one of the reasons why the Senate's favorables remain so low. Obama seems to be out of touch on health care reform too. His approval ratings have fallen because the economy is stagnant and shows little hope of improvement any time in the forseeable future, but a lot of voters continue to give him the benefit of the doubt on the economy. Obama's approval ratings have fallen further than they needed to because he's failed to fight for the promises he made during his campaign, especially health care reform promises.

The economy would take a toll on Senators and Obama to an extent. But it hasn't taken a toll on support for health care reform. And both Senators and Obama would see their numbers improve if they got their act together and passed a meaningful health care reform bill before Thanksgiving.

---

by: NealB2 @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 15:59:53 PM CDT

No, I totally disagree. (4.00 / 3)

the economy is causing support for the people trying to pass health care reform (aka, Democrats) to drop.

If anything, people losing jobs and health care should be putting so much pressure on this country for a moral imperative to pass real government universal health care.  

It is Democrats who are screwing this up and scaring people into thinking they better leave well enough alone before they lose everything.  This is causing support for health care to decline.   People don't trust politicians, and the Democrats showed them why.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 16:16:13 PM CDT

Now (4.00 / 3)

I run into more people vocally against health care reform than vocally for it.  Those against are simply spouting talking points but they are pretty visible.  Those for are talking about issues and incidents from their own life.

Compared to 1993-94, the opposition is much more organized and much more vocal.  In 1933-94, opposition really did not get much outside the establishment media.  This time, the opponents are very hot about it and anxious to go on the attack.

People are angry about the economy and anxious to hit out against something.  In this case, the health care reform bills are an easy target.

Interestingly enough, as I was scanning through the channels, a guest on CNBC was saying that the success of the modestly sized cash for clunkers program was evidence that as more stimulus money was spent next year, the economy would show even more signs of revival.  Success breeds confidence and confidence breeds more success.

I suspect that the economic downturn is most similar to the Panic of 1893.  That lasted about five years.  The political change was sharp but was by far the highest at the start.  If 1894=2008 then Democrats will lose seats in 2010 but not nearly what they gained in 2008.  FDR was able to show progress linked to prpograms and actually continue to gain in both 1934 and 1936.  A more aggressive stimulus and health care package and direct investigations into the malfeasance of the Bushies could have done that for us.  My best guesss is that we may lose as many as 10 House seats but they will be Blue Dogs so it won't matter.  May be a plus.  Instead of gaining four Senate seats, I see us breaking even or losing one.

Remember, Blue Dogs: spay or neuter (no more "puppies")

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 16:38:09 PM CDT

People don't trust the managerial skills of the Democrats (4.00 / 1)

they aren't enjoining confidence.

What's the plan again?

If I can't tell, the average voter cannot either.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 17:19:32 PM CDT

What's hurting health care reform (0.00 / 0)

A few things, but not the economy. Here goes:

1. Confused message from both Obama and Democratic leaders.

2. The decision by Obama/Dems to link cost savings in Medicare to the issue of universal coverage.

3. The weakness of Obama on public option--what it means (better terminology would have spared us GOP ability to lie about it), and whether it is an essential part of his reform.

4. Lack of message about affordability for middle income groups. They need to post some numbers as guide posts: ie, if your family of 4 makes 40,000 per year, you will pay x per month for insurance. No numbers makes all kinds of wild accusations and fears possible.

5. Not delivering message that the point of the whole thing is to SAVE AMERICAN LIVES and SAVE AMERICAN FAMILIES. Universal coverage, at prices that hard-working people can conceivably pay, should be selling point number 1, 2 &3.

I am currently trying to find a way to insure my daughter (age 23, perfectly healthy) now that she is being dropped from our plan because she graduated college. She is working freelance, in NYC, making about 1600-1800 a month, which is not really enough to live on in NYC, but she can just barely manage. I can't find anything for her that is less than 200 per month, with high deductibles. If she lived in MA, she would qualify for subsidized plan at about $50 a month.

Would Obama's health care reform give her a better deal? Who's to know? I have been following the progress of bills through both House & Senate and have no idea whether she would be able to afford health insurance under that plan (such as it might turn out). What would a mandate w/o public option impose on a kid like that? If she qualified for a subsidy, how would that work? As a tax credit, or as a monthly subsidy on her insurance bill?

There have been no messages about the practical implications in people's daily lives coming from the White House. This is clearly Obama's fault. I mean, he's the president. He should be in charge of the message, and making sure his people help him frame a clear argument.

Obama/Dem message should be aimed at people like me and my daughter. It isn't. He needs a new writer.

Why they decided to sell it as a way to save money on Medicare is beyond me. That may work to sell it to DC insiders, but not to the American public.

End of rant.

---

by: coral @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 17:41:28 PM CDT

Answered own question (4.00 / 2)

Q: Why they decided to sell it as a way to save money on Medicare is beyond me.

A: That may work to sell it to DC insiders, but not to the American public.

I'm not even going to say this was completely stupid.  Had he managed to keep Baucus on his time schedule he might have a bill to sign already.  Public opinion didn't really matter until about a month ago, as it was generally in favor of what Obama was doing.  Obama was selling to the DC insiders and Blue Dogs.  His strategy could have been great.

But obviously, it wasn't.  Worse, he let the Republicans define the populist message.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 18:18:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Disagree with you Chris, (0.00 / 0)

It seems more a message problem, and pursuit of "bipartisanship" is at it's core.  For this I blame Rahm and Obama being elitist, and triangulating to keep big money donations coming in. How are we democrats different if we make it clear that big money interests really run our govt?

The democratic party, and it's leaders need to stand for a core set of principles, and the fact that so many of our democratic congress critters seem to be as bought and paid for as the Republicans engenders a lack of confidence in their plans.

From FISA, to telecom immunity, to carrying on with the worst for the Bush era policies, and the dismal choice of bailing out Wall Street with no real pain or regulation effects how people feel about the government.

Yes, the economy sucks and that is effecting some people, but it is more about the lack of any real change that has people dropping support for team Obama and health care reform. What sign is there that we can trust this group of seemingly bought and paid for Democrats?

---

by: KC Bill 13 @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 19:33:47 PM CDT

Another factor (4.00 / 1)

Although I agree with Chris that the economy is having an impact on the healthcare debate and I agree with comments that "there's more to it than that," I think that you can't overlook the element of racism that is evident in the popular upswell against the Obama administration and virtually anything it does. The very face of America is changing. And lots of old white guys don't like it one bit.

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 20:07:24 PM CDT

I agree, Chris... (0.00 / 0)

...And have said so before:

It's the economy, not health care...

...and a (perceived) ineffective stimulus and scary deficits. Setting aside the partisans on both sides, for the independents and passively political 'persuadables' the result is growing concern that 'Obama change' may not be successful, hope is being replaced by fear and that provides a foundation for fear-mongering to take hold.

In this environment, even if they don't believe every 'fear' being propagated, the doubts fuel the "too fast" argument on health care reform and sadly too fast may win out. Even opponents are careful to "say" we need some type of reform while crying that we should slow down. Sadly, in this environment, I doubt the Dems will have the fortitude to push public option health care through on a partisan basis.

Problems began before the 'protesters'

Support for reform peaked and started to wane in late June, well before the town hall tantrums in August. Lack of a unified Democratic position/plan has reduced our side to chaotic sausage making and has given fuel to those who simply oppose. Fears that the economy will remain bad or get worse despite a stimulus that is (in perception, anyway) seen as a wasteful Fail, along with huge deficits, government takeover of the auto industry and general 'wrong track' unease is the real problem we face. Reasonable or not, the public now has doubts that must be addressed and remedied. The default position is when in doubt, don't.

...My guess is the apex and tipping point for health care support in that graph coincides with national unemployment going past 9% and still rising.

Health care reform = Employer payroll savings = More hiring and more jobs!

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:30:14 AM CDT